Bible being the Sole Authority??

[aidanbradypop]

Jr…I also want to point out that you are coming from denominations that do not 100% prescribe to sola scriptura. You were Reformed>Anglican>Lutheran if my memory serves me right. Reformed Theology is a whole different topic but Anglicans and Lutherans really do not subscribe to the doctrine of sola scriptura or sole authority of Scripture. Both denominations are rooted in Sacred Tradition, but seem not to want to admit it. Baptist even have their own tradition but do not want to call it that in fear of being close to the “catholics.”

I respect your views deeply as I respect and love you, but spend time with a fundamentalist evangelical in the South and they will curse you to Hell as fast as they will me lol. Denominations like Church of God, Baptist, Methodist, Pentecostal, Church of Christ, LCMC…etc are Bible Alone. They believe in no Sacred Tradition. It has to be written in the Bible or it is wrong. Not slighty wrong but WRONG!

 

[PRmerger]

Jr…you are speaking or typing lol from one Protestant view. Many denominations believe that if it is not in scripture then it is incorrect.

Right.

And here’s a Sola Scriptura dilemma I love to pose to non-Catholic Christians. I ask: is your paradigm

A: “If it’s not in Scripture it’s forbidden”

or is it

B: “If it’s not in Scripture it’s permitted”

For it appears that they go back and forth between both paradigms, depending upon the particular practice their church embraces.

For example, if they tell me it’s A (usually in an a dialogue about, say, praying the rosary. “It’s not in Scripture that you can pray the rosary, so Catholics shouldn’t do this!”)
then I ask “Where in the Scriptures does it say you can have weddings on a beach?” Since this isn’t in Scripture shouldn’t it be forbidden?

Then they will respond, “Well, if it’s not in Scripture that we can’t have weddings on the beach it’s permitted” citing option B.

It appears that they pick and choose their paradigm based on what they want to do. :sad_yes:

 

[aidanbradypop]

Right.

And here’s a Sola Scriptura dilemma I love to pose to non-Catholic Christians. I ask: is your paradigm

A: “If it’s not in Scripture it’s forbidden”

or is it

B: “If it’s not in Scripture it’s permitted”

For it appears that they go back and forth between both paradigms, depending upon the particular practice their church embraces.

For example, if they tell me it’s A (usually in an a dialogue about, say, praying the rosary. “It’s not in Scripture that you can pray the rosary, so Catholics shouldn’t do this!”)
then I ask “Where in the Scriptures does it say you can have weddings on a beach?” Since this isn’t in Scripture shouldn’t it be forbidden?

Then they will respond, “Well, if it’s not in Scripture that we can’t have weddings on the beach it’s permitted” citing option B.

It appears that they pick and choose their paradigm based on what they want to do. :sad_yes:

My grandfather calls it “flying by the seat of your pants” well that is the G-rated version lol.

 

[PRmerger]

My grandfather calls it “flying by the seat of your pants” well that is the G-rated version lol.

 

[jrtrent]

Jr…you are speaking or typing lol from one Protestant view. Many denominations believe that if it is not in scripture then it is incorrect. Sadly that view is not in scripture either. I suspect you have never met a southern baptist preacher from Mississippi.

If you read the confessions of several different Protestant denominations, I think you’ll find language similar to what was expressed in the 1689 London Baptist Confession of faith, so while there may be some churches that take the position you describe, what I presented is far from being just one Protestant view. I don’t know what srtc10’s particular Protestant affiliation is, but it would be nice to hear what that poster had in mind in saying, “I do give the Scriptures the sole and final authority in all matters of faith and morals to the Christian.”

It’s interesting about the Southern Baptists. You’re right that I haven’t met a Southern Baptist preacher from Mississippi, but it was interesting to find that at the formation of the Southern Baptist Church, every association that was represented embraced the Philadelphia Confession of Faith, which was the 1689 Confession with two articles added. So at least at their founding they did acknowledge “that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word.”

Also interesting is that there is now a subset of Southern Baptists that have banded together around acceptance of several historic confessions: The First London Baptist Confession of Faith, 1644, 1646, The Second London Baptist Confession (1689, The Philadelphia Confession), the New Hampshire Confession of Faith (1833), and The Baptist Faith and Message (1925, 1963, 1998, and 2000 editions).

So, we, as churches of the Spurgeon Baptist Association of Churches, affirm all these Confessions as expressions of our historic faith as Southern Baptists. A local church desiring to become a part of the Spurgeon Baptist Association of Churches understands that we accept all of these major Confessions of Faith as an expression of Baptist doctrine “all in harmony, differing only in the choice of language and fullness of expression.” sbaoc.org/message.php?topicID=25775&

 

[JonNC]

Jr…I also want to point out that you are coming from denominations that do not 100% prescribe to sola scriptura. You were Reformed>Anglican>Lutheran if my memory serves me right. Reformed Theology is a whole different topic but Anglicans and Lutherans really do not subscribe to the doctrine of sola scriptura or sole authority of Scripture. Both denominations are rooted in Sacred Tradition, but seem not to want to admit it. Baptist even have their own tradition but do not want to call it that in fear of being close to the “catholics.”

I respect your views deeply as I respect and love you, but spend time with a fundamentalist evangelical in the South and they will curse you to Hell as fast as they will me lol. Denominations like Church of God, Baptist, Methodist, Pentecostal, Church of Christ, LCMC…etc are Bible Alone. They believe in no Sacred Tradition. It has to be written in the Bible or it is wrong. Not slighty wrong but WRONG!

Other than the term “doctrine” (sola scriptura is a practice, not a doctrine) I would dispute this. Lutheranism is indeed sola scripturist. Our confessions say so.
I would contend that the others you named are the ones who do not adhere, properly, to the practice of sola scriptura.

Jon

 

[aidanbradypop]

Other than the term “doctrine” (sola scriptura is a practice, not a doctrine) I would dispute this. Lutheranism is indeed sola scripturist. Our confessions say so.
I would contend that the others you named are the ones who do not adhere, properly, to the practice of sola scriptura.

Jon

I kind of disagree a bit but not enough to dive into it lol

 

[marywarfield]

Thats the thing though. For the protestant we are told scripture is the final authority, scripture is the thing which settles things. Yet scripture in of itself, without recourse to tradition, cannot establish itself. Neccessarily the traditions of the church are lower in rank to scripture, yet you need that lower authority in order to establish your highest authority. I have encountered no good protestant argument to this problem. Because once you allow lower tradition to settle things of faith and doctrine, things that we apparently must believe (Protestants say we ought have a 66 book canon), then why does it stop with that? How about apostolic succession? The celebration of pascha and Lent? That a church is not just local or individual but defined by its communion with other churches that are apostolically ordained?

Quite honestly, I had this discussion with a person recently who told me they were baptized in the Protestant Church. After a bit of probing and logical explanation they revealed they were baptized in the Lutheran. Thank you, always good to be clear on that. But in any case, it boils down to this: Scripture gives the authority to forgive sins from Christ to the Apostles. Very clearly. A very clear example of succession of Christ.
Now, actually, if one cannot believe in the apostolic authority of the Papal succession, yet can claim sola scriptura in so far as the authority Christ vested in Peter and the apostles, obviously one is confused. If one cannot believe in a MAN, one cannot believe in Christ either. They are somewhat “symbiotic” in nature most especially for man. If I believe in the “historic” Christ, I must therefore believe in men as well that are “ordained” or given the authority. Christ did not give the authority to every Tom Dick and Harry, nor did He give the authority to ALL the disciples, but to a few select.
If one denies all that, which is written clearly in Scripture, than one also ends up denying the existence of the Holy Spirit sent to those whom Christ chose, also a scriptural event. Either way, with the denial of either one, it is an empty exercise for anyone to be sitting in any church, Protestant or Catholic. To believe in Christ means one must also believe in the MAN Himself, and in men as well, in so far as the Holy Spirit abides.

The problem is not so much that Protestants are sola scriptura as that Protestants are SELECTIVELY Sola Scriptura, accepting those scriptural passages that support their anti papal attitudes and rejecting those that don’t.

 

[JonNC]

Right.

And here’s a Sola Scriptura dilemma I love to pose to non-Catholic Christians. I ask: is your paradigm

A: “If it’s not in Scripture it’s forbidden”

or is it

B: “If it’s not in Scripture it’s permitted”

For it appears that they go back and forth between both paradigms, depending upon the particular practice their church embraces.

For example, if they tell me it’s A (usually in an a dialogue about, say, praying the rosary. “It’s not in Scripture that you can pray the rosary, so Catholics shouldn’t do this!”)
then I ask “Where in the Scriptures does it say you can have weddings on a beach?” Since this isn’t in Scripture shouldn’t it be forbidden?

Then they will respond, “Well, if it’s not in Scripture that we can’t have weddings on the beach it’s permitted” citing option B.

It appears that they pick and choose their paradigm based on what they want to do. :sad_yes:

Properly understood this is not the general function of sola scriptura. The function has to do with doctrine. Do my knowledge, there is no statement in scripture regarding weddings on the beach. Therefore, it is adiaphoron. Weddings on the beach cannot be doctrine, as scripture does not attach to it a command, example, or promise (to the beach part). OTOH, since a wedding on the beach, in and of itself, does no harm to the Gospel, it would not be prohibited.

As for the Rosary, there is no scriptural requirement for meditative prayer, which is what the Rosary is, though there is clearly a command, example, and promise of prayer. The Rosary, in general, does no damage to the Gospel (references to the Blessed Virgin notwithstanding). It too, therefore, cannot be required by doctrine, nor prohibited.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

I kind of disagree a bit but not enough to dive into it lol

Ok, lol. Let me just say that, since Luther gets the credit/blame for the practice of sola scriptura, it seems only right that Lutheran understanding would be the default.

Jon

 

[PRmerger]

Properly understood this is not the general function of sola scriptura. The function has to do with doctrine.

It appears as if you are making a distinction between doctrine and practice.

I appreciate that distinction, to be sure, Jon!

But what is doctrine except “instructions for practice”?

So if Sola Scriptura’s function is to offer doctrine, can we not assume that Sola Scriptura also ought to affect practice?

 

[JonNC]

It appears as if you are making a distinction between doctrine and practice.

I appreciate that distinction, to be sure, Jon!

But what is doctrine except “instructions for practice”?

So if Sola Scriptura’s function is to offer doctrine, can we not assume that Sola Scriptura also ought to affect practice?

Well, sure, to the extent I mentioned. If a practice does no harm to the Gospel - the act of holding a wedding on the beach, we would I think agree, does no harm in and of itself - then doing so would not be prohibited. The on-the-beach part falls under adiaphora. OTOH, since it carries no command (scripture does not require weddings to held on the beach), example, or promise (grace is not specifically made available if a wedding is exclusively held on the beach), it ought not be required to hold the wedding on the beach.

Where it would effect practice might be where scripture is specific. As examples:

Christ specifically uses bread and wine for the sacrament, not grape juice and Oreos. Therefore, doctrine would require the practice to be the use of bread and wine, not grape juice and Oreos. The use of bread and wine is not adiaphora, but instead required.​

Scripture is specific that we baptize using water, in the trinitarian formula. Therefore, doctrine dictates this practice of using water and the trinitarian formula. THis too, is not adiaphoron, and other practices are prohibited.​

Jon

 

[PRmerger]

Well, sure, to the extent I mentioned. If a practice does no harm to the Gospel - the act of holding a wedding on the beach, we would I think agree, does no harm in and of itself - then doing so would not be prohibited. The on-the-beach part falls under adiaphora. OTOH, since it carries no command (scripture does not require weddings to held on the beach), example, or promise (grace is not specifically made available if a wedding is exclusively held on the beach), it ought not be required to hold the wedding on the beach.

Where it would effect practice might be where scripture is specific. As examples:

Christ specifically uses bread and wine for the sacrament, not grape juice and Oreos. Therefore, doctrine would require the practice to be the use of bread and wine, not grape juice and Oreos. The use of bread and wine is not adiaphora, but instead required.​

Scripture is specific that we baptize using water, in the trinitarian formula. Therefore, doctrine dictates this practice of using water and the trinitarian formula. THis too, is not adiaphoron, and other practices are prohibited.​

Jon

I wish some of our Protestant brethren would espouse the paradigm you are proclaiming here!

 

[aidanbradypop]

Well, sure, to the extent I mentioned. If a practice does no harm to the Gospel - the act of holding a wedding on the beach, we would I think agree, does no harm in and of itself - then doing so would not be prohibited. The on-the-beach part falls under adiaphora. OTOH, since it carries no command (scripture does not require weddings to held on the beach), example, or promise (grace is not specifically made available if a wedding is exclusively held on the beach), it ought not be required to hold the wedding on the beach.

Where it would effect practice might be where scripture is specific. As examples:

Christ specifically uses bread and wine for the sacrament, not grape juice and Oreos. Therefore, doctrine would require the practice to be the use of bread and wine, not grape juice and Oreos. The use of bread and wine is not adiaphora, but instead required.​

Scripture is specific that we baptize using water, in the trinitarian formula. Therefore, doctrine dictates this practice of using water and the trinitarian formula. THis too, is not adiaphoron, and other practices are prohibited.​

Jon

Ok. Fair enough, but where in Scripture does it state the practice of using Scripture and the sole authority? Sounds like a lot of picking what you like and making excuses for the other. No offence.

 

[JonNC]

Quite honestly, I had this discussion with a person recently who told me they were baptized in the Protestant Church. After a bit of probing and logical explanation they revealed they were baptized in the Lutheran. Thank you, always good to be clear on that. But in any case, it boils down to this: Scripture gives the authority to forgive sins from Christ to the Apostles. Very clearly. A very clear example of succession of Christ.
Now, actually, if one cannot believe in the apostolic authority of the Papal succession, yet can claim sola scriptura in so far as the authority Christ vested in Peter and the apostles, obviously one is confused. If one cannot believe in a MAN, one cannot believe in Christ either. They are somewhat “symbiotic” in nature most especially for man. If I believe in the “historic” Christ, I must therefore believe in men as well that are “ordained” or given the authority. Christ did not give the authority to every Tom Dick and Harry, nor did He give the authority to ALL the disciples, but to a few select.
If one denies all that, which is written clearly in Scripture, than one also ends up denying the existence of the Holy Spirit sent to those whom Christ chose, also a scriptural event. Either way, with the denial of either one, it is an empty exercise for anyone to be sitting in any church, Protestant or Catholic. To believe in Christ means one must also believe in the MAN Himself, and in men as well, in so far as the Holy Spirit abides.

The problem is not so much that Protestants are sola scriptura as that Protestants are SELECTIVELY Sola Scriptura, accepting those scriptural passages that support their anti papal attitudes and rejecting those that don’t.

IgnatianPhilo is Orthodox. Would this apply to Orthodoxy as well? They reject, through Tradition and scripture, the claims the papacy makes for itself regarding supremacy over the universal Church on Earth.

You said that protestants reject scriptural passages that support the papacy, that their sola scipturism is selective. From a Lutheran perspective, I disagree. The confessions grant the role of the Bishop of Rome as patriarch of the western Church, but reject universal jurisdiction, not only on scriptural grounds, but also on the grounds of Tradition in the early Church.

Jon

 

[jrtrent]

Jr…I also want to point out that you are coming from denominations that do not 100% prescribe to sola scriptura. You were Reformed>Anglican>Lutheran if my memory serves me right. Reformed Theology is a whole different topic but Anglicans and Lutherans really do not subscribe to the doctrine of sola scriptura or sole authority of Scripture. Both denominations are rooted in Sacred Tradition, but seem not to want to admit it. Baptist even have their own tradition but do not want to call it that in fear of being close to the “catholics.”

Semantics gets in the way sometimes. Lutherans most definitely believe in sola scriptura:

Sola Scriptura is a watchword, a guide for action, for every true Lutheran, pastor or layman.

This was the position and practice of Luther and our Lutheran Confessions. “The Word of God is and should remain the sole rule and norm of all doctrine” (FC SD, Rule and Norm, 9). “We pledge ourselves to the prophetic and apostolic writings of the Old and New Testaments as the pure and clear fountain of Israel, which is the only true norm according to which all teachers and teachings are to be judged” (FC SD, Rule and Norm, 3). This is the spirit in which our great Lutheran Confessions speak. Everything we need to believe and do as Christians is told us in the Scriptures. Just as our Lord Jesus was a man of one Book and drew all His teaching from that one divine source and submitted Himself to it utterly in all He said and did, so we too who are His disciples today place ourselves joyfully under that prophetic and apostolic Word. And with our Lutheran Confessions we say: “No human being’s writings dare be put on a par with it, but … everything must be subjected to it” (FC SD, Rule and Norm, 9). bookofconcord.org/confessionsandbible.php

Anglicans recognize that same authority in scripture:

As to the authority of the Bible, Article VI of the Thirty-nine Articles states as follows: “Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation.” The main thrust of the statement is in contradistinction to the Roman belief that the unwritten “apostolic” traditions of the Church are of equal authority with scripture. No tradition of the Church without a scriptural foundation was to be accepted as an article of faith. The Bible is authoritative and sufficient for the life of faith, and is the standard of faith. patheos.com/Library/Anglican/Origins/Scriptures.html

However, I think I understand your distinction, as stated here:

On the other hand Sola Scriptura in Lutheran form is not against tradition per se. While some brands of Christianity might insist that if it’s not in the Bible then it’s not Christian, Lutheran theology understands that a tradition is allowable when (a) it is not contradicted by scripture, (b) it serves a purpose that is scriptural, and (c) it is not enforced as a pre-condition for Christian unity. lutherantheology.wordpress.com/2011/01/18/a-brief-introduction-to-sola-scriptura/

I respect your views deeply as I respect and love you, but spend time with a fundamentalist evangelical in the South and they will curse you to Hell as fast as they will me lol. Denominations like Church of God, Baptist, Methodist, Pentecostal, Church of Christ, LCMC…etc are Bible Alone. They believe in no Sacred Tradition. It has to be written in the Bible or it is wrong. Not slighty wrong but WRONG!

Lots of things to respond to in recent posts, like your statement above, but I’ve got to get going or I’ll be late for bowling! Later.

 

[JonNC]

Ok. Fair enough, but where in Scripture does it state the practice of using Scripture and the sole authority? Sounds like a lot of picking what you like and making excuses for the other. No offence.

Understanding, first, that sola scriptura is a post-apostolic practice and not a doctrine, this would exclude the need for it to be stated specifically. There are implicit statements regarding scripture in this way, and Christ regularly says, “it is written”, but none of those are explicit.
From my own perspectice, there would be no need for sola scriptura if the practice of using Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture had not failed to keep the Church in unity. As it stands, there is contradiction regarding councils, and scripture, not related to Lutheranism or protestantism. If there was to be unity again between all the patriarchates, there again would be no need for sola scriptura.

Jon

 

[PRmerger]

Understanding, first, that sola scriptura is a post-apostolic practice and not a doctrine, this would exclude the need for it to be stated specifically.

With all due respect, friend, this appears to be an innovation rather than a proper understanding of Sola Scriptura. It is a newly minted paradigm, “Sola Scriptura is not a doctrine but rather a practice” in order to answer the very real objection that SS is contradictory.

 

[aidanbradypop]

Understanding, first, that sola scriptura is a post-apostolic practice and not a doctrine, this would exclude the need for it to be stated specifically. There are implicit statements regarding scripture in this way, and Christ regularly says, “it is written”, but none of those are explicit.
From my own perspectice, there would be no need for sola scriptura if the practice of using Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture had not failed to keep the Church in unity. As it stands, there is contradiction regarding councils, and scripture, not related to Lutheranism or protestantism. If there was to be unity again between all the patriarchates, there again would be no need for sola scriptura.

Jon

Hmmmmm lol. Ummmmmm. Hmmmmmmm. ST & SS did not divide the Church Jon. It was the sinful and prideful man that split. Right?

 

[JonNC]

With all due respect, friend, this appears to be an innovation rather than a proper understanding of Sola Scriptura. It is a newly minted paradigm, “Sola Scriptura is not a doctrine but rather a practice” in order to answer the very real objection that SS is contradictory.

Not from a Lutheran perspective. And since I don’t believe sola scriptura to be contradictory, I have no need to respond to the objection. But to that end:

OBJECTION: The doctrine of Sola Scriptura contradicts itself. For if the doctrine is true, then it ought itself to be stated in Holy Scripture. But in fact it is not.

REPLY: We are offered an argument of the following form:

(1) Sola Scriptura = “All true propositions are stated in Holy Scripture.”
(2) Sola Scriptura is not stated in Holy Scripture.
(3) Therefore, Sola Scriptura is not a true proposition.

But in fact, the argument should be of the form:

(1) Sola Scriptura = “All truths necessary to salvation are stated in Holy Scripture.”
(2) Sola Scriptura is not stated in Holy Scripture.
(3) Therefore, Sola Scriptura is not a truth necessary to salvation.

And to this conclusion I, for one, have no objection. I cheerfully look forward to seeing many of my Roman Catholic friends in Heaven, despite their regrettable error in holding certain propositions to be true, and their still more regrettable error in holding them to be essential parts of the Catholic faith. My comments on Line (2) of the argument appear below.

This from an article by an Anglican, James Kiefer, which is found in this case on the Lutheran Theology Website.
angelfire.com/ny4/djw/lutherantheology.kiefersolascriptura.html

A doctrine is something that must be believed, the conscience of the believer is bound to it. These come from scripture, in the Lutheran Tradition. I agree with Mr. Kiefer that there is no need to believe that assent to sola scriptura is a doctrine required for salvation.

Jon